Pathway Summary”

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 391

control, N = 191

treatment, N = 201

p-value2

age

39

50.16 ± 13.09 (25 - 72)

49.31 ± 13.19 (25 - 72)

50.98 ± 13.28 (32 - 72)

0.696

gender

39

0.257

f

26 (67%)

11 (58%)

15 (75%)

m

13 (33%)

8 (42%)

5 (25%)

occupation

39

0.946

full_time

5 (13%)

3 (16%)

2 (10%)

homemaker

2 (5.1%)

1 (5.3%)

1 (5.0%)

other

2 (5.1%)

0 (0%)

2 (10%)

part_time

6 (15%)

4 (21%)

2 (10%)

retired

11 (28%)

5 (26%)

6 (30%)

self_employ

2 (5.1%)

1 (5.3%)

1 (5.0%)

t_and_e

2 (5.1%)

1 (5.3%)

1 (5.0%)

unemploy

9 (23%)

4 (21%)

5 (25%)

marital

39

>0.999

divore

5 (13%)

3 (16%)

2 (10%)

married

7 (18%)

3 (16%)

4 (20%)

none

21 (54%)

10 (53%)

11 (55%)

seperation

3 (7.7%)

2 (11%)

1 (5.0%)

widow

3 (7.7%)

1 (5.3%)

2 (10%)

edu

39

0.479

bachelor

12 (31%)

5 (26%)

7 (35%)

diploma

7 (18%)

5 (26%)

2 (10%)

hd_ad

1 (2.6%)

1 (5.3%)

0 (0%)

postgraduate

4 (10%)

2 (11%)

2 (10%)

primary

4 (10%)

1 (5.3%)

3 (15%)

secondary_1_3

2 (5.1%)

0 (0%)

2 (10%)

secondary_4_5

8 (21%)

5 (26%)

3 (15%)

secondary_6_7

1 (2.6%)

0 (0%)

1 (5.0%)

fam_income

39

0.863

10001_12000

3 (7.7%)

1 (5.3%)

2 (10%)

12001_14000

1 (2.6%)

1 (5.3%)

0 (0%)

14001_16000

4 (10%)

1 (5.3%)

3 (15%)

16001_18000

2 (5.1%)

1 (5.3%)

1 (5.0%)

18001_20000

1 (2.6%)

1 (5.3%)

0 (0%)

20001_above

7 (18%)

5 (26%)

2 (10%)

2001_4000

5 (13%)

2 (11%)

3 (15%)

4001_6000

6 (15%)

3 (16%)

3 (15%)

6001_8000

3 (7.7%)

2 (11%)

1 (5.0%)

8001_10000

3 (7.7%)

1 (5.3%)

2 (10%)

below_2000

4 (10%)

1 (5.3%)

3 (15%)

medication

39

34 (87%)

16 (84%)

18 (90%)

0.661

onset_duration

39

16.70 ± 12.83 (0 - 56)

17.78 ± 15.00 (1 - 56)

15.68 ± 10.66 (0 - 35)

0.616

onset_age

39

33.46 ± 12.66 (15 - 62)

31.53 ± 11.38 (16 - 55)

35.30 ± 13.82 (15 - 62)

0.360

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 391

control, N = 191

treatment, N = 201

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

39

3.54 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

3.58 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)

3.50 ± 1.28 (1 - 5)

0.845

recovery_stage_b

39

18.41 ± 2.74 (9 - 23)

18.53 ± 3.03 (9 - 23)

18.30 ± 2.52 (14 - 23)

0.800

ras_confidence

39

31.28 ± 4.45 (22 - 40)

31.00 ± 3.86 (26 - 40)

31.55 ± 5.03 (22 - 39)

0.705

ras_willingness

39

12.33 ± 2.04 (7 - 15)

12.53 ± 1.71 (9 - 15)

12.15 ± 2.35 (7 - 15)

0.572

ras_goal

39

17.92 ± 2.99 (12 - 24)

18.11 ± 2.73 (13 - 23)

17.75 ± 3.29 (12 - 24)

0.716

ras_reliance

39

13.46 ± 3.21 (8 - 20)

13.42 ± 2.89 (8 - 18)

13.50 ± 3.56 (8 - 20)

0.940

ras_domination

39

10.26 ± 2.52 (3 - 15)

11.11 ± 1.73 (8 - 15)

9.45 ± 2.91 (3 - 14)

0.039

symptom

39

29.69 ± 10.67 (14 - 56)

28.53 ± 9.00 (14 - 45)

30.80 ± 12.18 (15 - 56)

0.513

slof_work

39

23.23 ± 5.09 (10 - 30)

24.05 ± 4.60 (15 - 30)

22.45 ± 5.52 (10 - 30)

0.332

slof_relationship

39

26.82 ± 5.74 (11 - 35)

27.84 ± 5.33 (19 - 35)

25.85 ± 6.08 (11 - 35)

0.285

satisfaction

39

21.62 ± 6.99 (5 - 30)

20.47 ± 6.74 (5 - 29)

22.70 ± 7.23 (5 - 30)

0.327

mhc_emotional

39

11.85 ± 3.48 (4 - 18)

11.42 ± 2.87 (7 - 17)

12.25 ± 4.01 (4 - 18)

0.465

mhc_social

39

15.26 ± 4.89 (6 - 25)

15.68 ± 4.50 (8 - 25)

14.85 ± 5.32 (6 - 23)

0.601

mhc_psychological

39

23.08 ± 5.89 (6 - 36)

22.63 ± 5.45 (13 - 33)

23.50 ± 6.39 (6 - 36)

0.651

resilisnce

39

17.23 ± 4.80 (6 - 25)

17.16 ± 4.48 (6 - 24)

17.30 ± 5.20 (7 - 25)

0.928

social_provision

39

13.74 ± 3.21 (5 - 20)

13.79 ± 2.80 (10 - 20)

13.70 ± 3.63 (5 - 19)

0.932

els_value_living

39

17.38 ± 3.02 (5 - 23)

17.26 ± 1.82 (13 - 20)

17.50 ± 3.89 (5 - 23)

0.810

els_life_fulfill

39

13.26 ± 3.38 (4 - 18)

12.58 ± 3.31 (5 - 17)

13.90 ± 3.40 (4 - 18)

0.227

els

39

30.64 ± 5.70 (9 - 40)

29.84 ± 4.14 (22 - 36)

31.40 ± 6.89 (9 - 40)

0.400

social_connect

39

26.31 ± 10.41 (8 - 48)

26.00 ± 9.10 (8 - 45)

26.60 ± 11.75 (8 - 48)

0.860

shs_agency

39

14.46 ± 4.76 (3 - 20)

14.42 ± 4.03 (3 - 20)

14.50 ± 5.47 (3 - 20)

0.960

shs_pathway

39

16.92 ± 3.69 (4 - 22)

16.63 ± 2.91 (9 - 21)

17.20 ± 4.37 (4 - 22)

0.637

shs

39

31.38 ± 7.78 (7 - 42)

31.05 ± 6.51 (16 - 41)

31.70 ± 8.99 (7 - 42)

0.799

esteem

39

12.62 ± 1.16 (10 - 15)

12.84 ± 0.90 (11 - 14)

12.40 ± 1.35 (10 - 15)

0.240

mlq_search

39

15.51 ± 3.19 (3 - 21)

15.79 ± 2.62 (12 - 21)

15.25 ± 3.71 (3 - 20)

0.605

mlq_presence

39

13.90 ± 4.00 (3 - 21)

14.79 ± 2.20 (12 - 19)

13.05 ± 5.08 (3 - 21)

0.178

mlq

39

29.41 ± 6.47 (6 - 41)

30.58 ± 4.59 (25 - 40)

28.30 ± 7.81 (6 - 41)

0.277

empower

39

20.26 ± 4.28 (6 - 28)

20.74 ± 3.07 (14 - 24)

19.80 ± 5.22 (6 - 28)

0.502

ismi_resistance

39

15.08 ± 2.87 (5 - 20)

15.16 ± 2.17 (12 - 19)

15.00 ± 3.46 (5 - 20)

0.866

ismi_discrimation

39

11.18 ± 3.31 (5 - 19)

12.11 ± 3.14 (5 - 17)

10.30 ± 3.29 (5 - 19)

0.089

sss_affective

39

9.49 ± 4.32 (3 - 18)

9.84 ± 3.62 (3 - 15)

9.15 ± 4.97 (3 - 18)

0.624

sss_behavior

39

9.62 ± 4.53 (3 - 18)

10.32 ± 4.45 (3 - 18)

8.95 ± 4.63 (3 - 18)

0.354

sss_cognitive

39

7.95 ± 4.13 (3 - 18)

7.58 ± 3.81 (3 - 15)

8.30 ± 4.49 (3 - 18)

0.592

sss

39

27.05 ± 12.07 (9 - 54)

27.74 ± 10.42 (9 - 44)

26.40 ± 13.69 (9 - 54)

0.734

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.58

0.278

3.03, 4.12

group

control

treatment

-0.079

0.389

-0.841, 0.683

0.840

time_point

1st

2nd

0.145

0.468

-0.773, 1.06

0.768

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.855

0.805

-0.724, 2.43

0.331

Pseudo R square

0.028

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

18.5

0.632

17.3, 19.8

group

control

treatment

-0.226

0.883

-1.96, 1.50

0.799

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.632

0.542

-1.69, 0.430

0.307

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.808

0.937

-1.03, 2.64

0.436

Pseudo R square

0.004

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

31.0

1.026

29.0, 33.0

group

control

treatment

0.550

1.433

-2.26, 3.36

0.703

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.221

0.758

-1.71, 1.26

0.785

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.95

1.311

-0.616, 4.52

0.209

Pseudo R square

0.013

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

12.5

0.465

11.6, 13.4

group

control

treatment

-0.376

0.649

-1.65, 0.895

0.565

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.869

0.650

-2.14, 0.405

0.242

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.901

1.121

-1.30, 3.10

0.459

Pseudo R square

0.017

ras_goal

(Intercept)

18.1

0.683

16.8, 19.4

group

control

treatment

-0.355

0.954

-2.22, 1.51

0.712

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.311

0.654

-1.59, 0.971

0.657

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.063

1.131

-2.28, 2.15

0.958

Pseudo R square

0.005

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.4

0.747

12.0, 14.9

group

control

treatment

0.079

1.043

-1.97, 2.12

0.940

time_point

1st

2nd

0.031

0.690

-1.32, 1.38

0.966

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.923

1.194

-1.42, 3.26

0.479

Pseudo R square

0.004

ras_domination

(Intercept)

11.1

0.557

10.0, 12.2

group

control

treatment

-1.66

0.778

-3.18, -0.131

0.040

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.79

1.096

-3.94, 0.356

0.136

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

3.33

1.876

-0.348, 7.01

0.107

Pseudo R square

0.107

symptom

(Intercept)

28.5

2.464

23.7, 33.4

group

control

treatment

2.27

3.440

-4.47, 9.02

0.513

time_point

1st

2nd

-2.84

1.749

-6.27, 0.588

0.178

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

3.05

3.027

-2.88, 8.99

0.369

Pseudo R square

0.022

slof_work

(Intercept)

24.1

1.156

21.8, 26.3

group

control

treatment

-1.60

1.615

-4.77, 1.56

0.327

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.70

0.957

-3.57, 0.178

0.150

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

2.00

1.656

-1.25, 5.24

0.293

Pseudo R square

0.025

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

27.8

1.297

25.3, 30.4

group

control

treatment

-1.99

1.812

-5.54, 1.56

0.279

time_point

1st

2nd

-3.34

1.328

-5.94, -0.735

0.060

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

5.03

2.295

0.530, 9.53

0.087

Pseudo R square

0.041

satisfaction

(Intercept)

20.5

1.602

17.3, 23.6

group

control

treatment

2.23

2.236

-2.16, 6.61

0.326

time_point

1st

2nd

3.07

1.704

-0.274, 6.41

0.145

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.65

2.945

-7.42, 4.12

0.604

Pseudo R square

0.032

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

11.4

0.785

9.88, 13.0

group

control

treatment

0.829

1.096

-1.32, 2.98

0.454

time_point

1st

2nd

1.08

1.882

-2.61, 4.77

0.570

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

3.17

3.159

-3.02, 9.36

0.321

Pseudo R square

0.086

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.7

1.229

13.3, 18.1

group

control

treatment

-0.834

1.716

-4.20, 2.53

0.630

time_point

1st

2nd

3.27

2.582

-1.79, 8.33

0.222

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-6.13

4.404

-14.8, 2.50

0.181

Pseudo R square

0.061

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

22.6

1.369

19.9, 25.3

group

control

treatment

0.868

1.912

-2.88, 4.62

0.652

time_point

1st

2nd

1.69

3.150

-4.48, 7.87

0.598

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.54

5.331

-13.0, 7.91

0.639

Pseudo R square

0.009

resilisnce

(Intercept)

17.2

1.116

15.0, 19.3

group

control

treatment

0.142

1.559

-2.91, 3.20

0.928

time_point

1st

2nd

0.310

0.908

-1.47, 2.09

0.750

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.40

1.571

-6.48, -0.322

0.095

Pseudo R square

0.017

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.8

0.738

12.3, 15.2

group

control

treatment

-0.089

1.030

-2.11, 1.93

0.931

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.190

0.649

-1.46, 1.08

0.784

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.26

1.122

-0.941, 3.46

0.324

Pseudo R square

0.005

els_value_living

(Intercept)

17.3

0.700

15.9, 18.6

group

control

treatment

0.237

0.978

-1.68, 2.15

0.810

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.245

0.216

-0.669, 0.179

0.320

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.740

0.374

-1.47, -0.006

0.119

Pseudo R square

0.006

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.6

0.766

11.1, 14.1

group

control

treatment

1.32

1.070

-0.776, 3.42

0.225

time_point

1st

2nd

0.768

0.915

-1.03, 2.56

0.448

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.851

1.580

-3.95, 2.25

0.618

Pseudo R square

0.035

els

(Intercept)

29.8

1.312

27.3, 32.4

group

control

treatment

1.56

1.832

-2.03, 5.15

0.401

time_point

1st

2nd

0.377

0.970

-1.52, 2.28

0.717

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.64

1.678

-4.92, 1.65

0.383

Pseudo R square

0.017

social_connect

(Intercept)

26.0

2.430

21.2, 30.8

group

control

treatment

0.600

3.393

-6.05, 7.25

0.861

time_point

1st

2nd

4.59

1.136

2.37, 6.82

0.015

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.335

1.966

-3.52, 4.19

0.873

Pseudo R square

0.023

shs_agency

(Intercept)

14.4

1.105

12.3, 16.6

group

control

treatment

0.079

1.543

-2.95, 3.10

0.959

time_point

1st

2nd

2.54

0.901

0.776, 4.31

0.048

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.29

1.558

-5.34, 0.764

0.215

Pseudo R square

0.022

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.6

0.846

15.0, 18.3

group

control

treatment

0.568

1.182

-1.75, 2.88

0.633

time_point

1st

2nd

1.02

0.954

-0.852, 2.89

0.347

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.05

1.647

-4.28, 2.18

0.558

Pseudo R square

0.008

shs

(Intercept)

31.1

1.805

27.5, 34.6

group

control

treatment

0.647

2.520

-4.29, 5.59

0.799

time_point

1st

2nd

3.51

0.685

2.17, 4.85

0.007

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.91

1.185

-6.23, -1.58

0.030

Pseudo R square

0.015

esteem

(Intercept)

12.8

0.263

12.3, 13.4

group

control

treatment

-0.442

0.367

-1.16, 0.277

0.235

time_point

1st

2nd

0.158

0.630

-1.08, 1.39

0.803

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.058

1.058

-2.13, 2.02

0.957

Pseudo R square

0.041

mlq_search

(Intercept)

15.8

0.737

14.3, 17.2

group

control

treatment

-0.539

1.029

-2.56, 1.48

0.603

time_point

1st

2nd

0.239

1.125

-1.97, 2.44

0.841

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.395

1.937

-4.19, 3.40

0.847

Pseudo R square

0.009

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

14.8

0.905

13.0, 16.6

group

control

treatment

-1.74

1.264

-4.22, 0.738

0.177

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.137

0.837

-1.78, 1.50

0.878

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.04

1.448

-3.88, 1.80

0.512

Pseudo R square

0.055

mlq

(Intercept)

30.6

1.476

27.7, 33.5

group

control

treatment

-2.28

2.061

-6.32, 1.76

0.276

time_point

1st

2nd

0.216

1.880

-3.47, 3.90

0.914

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.35

3.245

-7.71, 5.01

0.697

Pseudo R square

0.036

empower

(Intercept)

20.7

0.985

18.8, 22.7

group

control

treatment

-0.937

1.375

-3.63, 1.76

0.500

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.457

0.559

-1.55, 0.638

0.460

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.43

0.967

-3.33, 0.462

0.212

Pseudo R square

0.023

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

15.2

0.638

13.9, 16.4

group

control

treatment

-0.158

0.892

-1.91, 1.59

0.860

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.825

1.411

-3.59, 1.94

0.589

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.40

2.399

-3.30, 6.10

0.584

Pseudo R square

0.008

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.1

0.720

10.7, 13.5

group

control

treatment

-1.81

1.006

-3.78, 0.166

0.081

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.05

1.354

-3.70, 1.61

0.501

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.412

2.321

-4.14, 4.96

0.871

Pseudo R square

0.077

sss_affective

(Intercept)

9.84

1.002

7.88, 11.8

group

control

treatment

-0.692

1.399

-3.43, 2.05

0.624

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.197

0.415

-1.01, 0.616

0.659

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.09

0.718

-0.313, 2.50

0.202

Pseudo R square

0.006

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.3

1.037

8.28, 12.3

group

control

treatment

-1.37

1.449

-4.21, 1.47

0.352

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.678

0.545

-1.75, 0.390

0.282

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.55

0.944

-0.303, 3.40

0.177

Pseudo R square

0.020

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

7.58

0.952

5.71, 9.44

group

control

treatment

0.721

1.329

-1.88, 3.33

0.591

time_point

1st

2nd

2.48

1.386

-0.241, 5.19

0.150

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.79

2.388

-7.47, 1.89

0.307

Pseudo R square

0.027

sss

(Intercept)

27.7

2.796

22.3, 33.2

group

control

treatment

-1.34

3.904

-8.99, 6.32

0.734

time_point

1st

2nd

1.24

1.552

-1.80, 4.28

0.470

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.821

2.687

-4.45, 6.09

0.775

Pseudo R square

0.005

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.58 (95% CI [3.03, 4.12], t(39) = 12.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.68], t(39) = -0.20, p = 0.839; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.06], t(39) = 0.31, p = 0.756; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.89])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.72, 2.43], t(39) = 1.06, p = 0.289; Std. beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.61, 2.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.44e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.53 (95% CI [17.29, 19.77], t(39) = 29.30, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.96, 1.50], t(39) = -0.26, p = 0.798; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.43], t(39) = -1.17, p = 0.243; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.03, 2.64], t(39) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.00])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.00 (95% CI [28.99, 33.01], t(39) = 30.21, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.26, 3.36], t(39) = 0.38, p = 0.701; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.77])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.71, 1.26], t(39) = -0.29, p = 0.771; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.95, 95% CI [-0.62, 4.52], t(39) = 1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.53 (95% CI [11.62, 13.44], t(39) = 26.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.65, 0.90], t(39) = -0.58, p = 0.562; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.87, 95% CI [-2.14, 0.41], t(39) = -1.34, p = 0.181; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-1.30, 3.10], t(39) = 0.80, p = 0.421; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.69e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.11 (95% CI [16.77, 19.44], t(39) = 26.51, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-2.22, 1.51], t(39) = -0.37, p = 0.709; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.97], t(39) = -0.48, p = 0.635; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-2.28, 2.15], t(39) = -0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.74])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.42 (95% CI [11.96, 14.89], t(39) = 17.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.97, 2.12], t(39) = 0.08, p = 0.940; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.32, 1.38], t(39) = 0.04, p = 0.965; Std. beta = 9.67e-03, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-1.42, 3.26], t(39) = 0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.11. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.11 (95% CI [10.01, 12.20], t(39) = 19.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.66, 95% CI [-3.18, -0.13], t(39) = -2.13, p = 0.033; Std. beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.27, -0.05])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.79, 95% CI [-3.94, 0.36], t(39) = -1.64, p = 0.102; Std. beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-1.58, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.33, 95% CI [-0.35, 7.01], t(39) = 1.77, p = 0.076; Std. beta = 1.33, 95% CI [-0.14, 2.80])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.53 (95% CI [23.70, 33.36], t(39) = 11.58, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.27, 95% CI [-4.47, 9.02], t(39) = 0.66, p = 0.509; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.85])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.84, 95% CI [-6.27, 0.59], t(39) = -1.62, p = 0.104; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.05, 95% CI [-2.88, 8.99], t(39) = 1.01, p = 0.313; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.84])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.05 (95% CI [21.79, 26.32], t(39) = 20.80, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.60, 95% CI [-4.77, 1.56], t(39) = -0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.32])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.70, 95% CI [-3.57, 0.18], t(39) = -1.77, p = 0.076; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.00, 95% CI [-1.25, 5.24], t(39) = 1.21, p = 0.227; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.84 (95% CI [25.30, 30.38], t(39) = 21.46, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.99, 95% CI [-5.54, 1.56], t(39) = -1.10, p = 0.272; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.28])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.34, 95% CI [-5.94, -0.73], t(39) = -2.51, p = 0.012; Std. beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.07, -0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 5.03, 95% CI [0.53, 9.53], t(39) = 2.19, p = 0.028; Std. beta = 0.90, 95% CI [0.10, 1.71])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.47 (95% CI [17.33, 23.61], t(39) = 12.78, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.23, 95% CI [-2.16, 6.61], t(39) = 1.00, p = 0.320; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.97])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 6.41], t(39) = 1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.94])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.65, 95% CI [-7.42, 4.12], t(39) = -0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s explanatory power related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.42 (95% CI [9.88, 12.96], t(39) = 14.55, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-1.32, 2.98], t(39) = 0.76, p = 0.449; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.86])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-2.61, 4.77], t(39) = 0.57, p = 0.566; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.17, 95% CI [-3.02, 9.36], t(39) = 1.00, p = 0.315; Std. beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.70])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.68 (95% CI [13.28, 18.09], t(39) = 12.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-4.20, 2.53], t(39) = -0.49, p = 0.627; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.27, 95% CI [-1.79, 8.33], t(39) = 1.27, p = 0.205; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.53])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -6.13, 95% CI [-14.77, 2.50], t(39) = -1.39, p = 0.164; Std. beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-2.71, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.18) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.57e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.63 (95% CI [19.95, 25.32], t(39) = 16.53, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-2.88, 4.62], t(39) = 0.45, p = 0.650; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.80])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.69, 95% CI [-4.48, 7.87], t(39) = 0.54, p = 0.591; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.54, 95% CI [-12.99, 7.91], t(39) = -0.48, p = 0.634; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-2.25, 1.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.16 (95% CI [14.97, 19.35], t(39) = 15.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-2.91, 3.20], t(39) = 0.09, p = 0.927; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.70])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.47, 2.09], t(39) = 0.34, p = 0.733; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.40, 95% CI [-6.48, -0.32], t(39) = -2.16, p = 0.030; Std. beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-1.41, -0.07])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.79 (95% CI [12.34, 15.24], t(39) = 18.69, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-2.11, 1.93], t(39) = -0.09, p = 0.931; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.46, 1.08], t(39) = -0.29, p = 0.769; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.26, 95% CI [-0.94, 3.46], t(39) = 1.12, p = 0.262; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.99) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.26 (95% CI [15.89, 18.64], t(39) = 24.65, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.68, 2.15], t(39) = 0.24, p = 0.809; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.74])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.18], t(39) = -1.13, p = 0.257; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-1.47, -6.09e-03], t(39) = -1.98, p = 0.048; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.50, -2.08e-03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.58 (95% CI [11.08, 14.08], t(39) = 16.42, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [-0.78, 3.42], t(39) = 1.23, p = 0.217; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.04])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-1.03, 2.56], t(39) = 0.84, p = 0.401; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.78])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-3.95, 2.25], t(39) = -0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.20, 0.68])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.84 (95% CI [27.27, 32.41], t(39) = 22.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.56, 95% CI [-2.03, 5.15], t(39) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.93])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.52, 2.28], t(39) = 0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.64, 95% CI [-4.92, 1.65], t(39) = -0.97, p = 0.330; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.98) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.00 (95% CI [21.24, 30.76], t(39) = 10.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-6.05, 7.25], t(39) = 0.18, p = 0.860; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 4.59, 95% CI [2.37, 6.82], t(39) = 4.04, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [0.23, 0.68])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-3.52, 4.19], t(39) = 0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [12.26, 16.59], t(39) = 13.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-2.95, 3.10], t(39) = 0.05, p = 0.959; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.54, 95% CI [0.78, 4.31], t(39) = 2.82, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [0.17, 0.93])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.29, 95% CI [-5.34, 0.76], t(39) = -1.47, p = 0.142; Std. beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.47e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.63 (95% CI [14.97, 18.29], t(39) = 19.65, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.75, 2.88], t(39) = 0.48, p = 0.630; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.82])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.85, 2.89], t(39) = 1.07, p = 0.286; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.82])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-4.28, 2.18], t(39) = -0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.21, 0.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.98) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.05 (95% CI [27.52, 34.59], t(39) = 17.21, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-4.29, 5.59], t(39) = 0.26, p = 0.797; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.74])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.51, 95% CI [2.17, 4.85], t(39) = 5.13, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [0.29, 0.64])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.91, 95% CI [-6.23, -1.58], t(39) = -3.30, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-0.83, -0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s explanatory power related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.84 (95% CI [12.33, 13.36], t(39) = 48.85, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.16, 0.28], t(39) = -1.20, p = 0.228; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.39], t(39) = 0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-2.13, 2.02], t(39) = -0.05, p = 0.956; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.88, 1.78])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.21e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.79 (95% CI [14.35, 17.23], t(39) = 21.43, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-2.56, 1.48], t(39) = -0.52, p = 0.600; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.97, 2.44], t(39) = 0.21, p = 0.832; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.79])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-4.19, 3.40], t(39) = -0.20, p = 0.838; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.36, 1.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.79 (95% CI [13.02, 16.56], t(39) = 16.34, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.74, 95% CI [-4.22, 0.74], t(39) = -1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.19])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.78, 1.50], t(39) = -0.16, p = 0.870; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.04, 95% CI [-3.88, 1.80], t(39) = -0.72, p = 0.472; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.58 (95% CI [27.69, 33.47], t(39) = 20.72, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.28, 95% CI [-6.32, 1.76], t(39) = -1.11, p = 0.269; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.28])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-3.47, 3.90], t(39) = 0.11, p = 0.909; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.63])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.35, 95% CI [-7.71, 5.01], t(39) = -0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.80])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.97) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.74 (95% CI [18.81, 22.67], t(39) = 21.06, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-3.63, 1.76], t(39) = -0.68, p = 0.496; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.64], t(39) = -0.82, p = 0.414; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.43, 95% CI [-3.33, 0.46], t(39) = -1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.11])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.29) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.35e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.16 (95% CI [13.91, 16.41], t(39) = 23.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.91, 1.59], t(39) = -0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-3.59, 1.94], t(39) = -0.58, p = 0.559; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.33, 0.72])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.40, 95% CI [-3.30, 6.10], t(39) = 0.58, p = 0.559; Std. beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-1.23, 2.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.11 (95% CI [10.69, 13.52], t(39) = 16.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.81, 95% CI [-3.78, 0.17], t(39) = -1.80, p = 0.073; Std. beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.21, 0.05])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-3.70, 1.61], t(39) = -0.77, p = 0.439; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.19, 0.52])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-4.14, 4.96], t(39) = 0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.33, 1.59])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.98) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.30e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.84 (95% CI [7.88, 11.81], t(39) = 9.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-3.43, 2.05], t(39) = -0.49, p = 0.621; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.62], t(39) = -0.48, p = 0.635; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.31, 2.50], t(39) = 1.52, p = 0.128; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.58])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.97) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.32 (95% CI [8.28, 12.35], t(39) = 9.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-4.21, 1.47], t(39) = -0.94, p = 0.346; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.75, 0.39], t(39) = -1.24, p = 0.213; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.09])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.55, 95% CI [-0.30, 3.40], t(39) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.78])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 7.58 (95% CI [5.71, 9.44], t(39) = 7.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-1.88, 3.33], t(39) = 0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.81])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.48, 95% CI [-0.24, 5.19], t(39) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.79, 95% CI [-7.47, 1.89], t(39) = -1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.82, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.97) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.14e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.74 (95% CI [22.26, 33.22], t(39) = 9.92, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.34, 95% CI [-8.99, 6.32], t(39) = -0.34, p = 0.732; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.24, 95% CI [-1.80, 4.28], t(39) = 0.80, p = 0.425; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-4.45, 6.09], t(39) = 0.31, p = 0.760; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.51])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

146.146

151.566

-70.073

140.146

recovery_stage_a

random

6

149.363

160.203

-68.682

137.363

2.783

3

0.426

recovery_stage_b

null

3

211.066

216.486

-102.533

205.066

recovery_stage_b

random

6

215.226

226.066

-101.613

203.226

1.839

3

0.606

ras_confidence

null

3

254.398

259.818

-124.199

248.398

ras_confidence

random

6

257.012

267.852

-122.506

245.012

3.385

3

0.336

ras_willingness

null

3

189.639

195.059

-91.820

183.639

ras_willingness

random

6

193.298

204.138

-90.649

181.298

2.342

3

0.505

ras_goal

null

3

218.180

223.600

-106.090

212.180

ras_goal

random

6

223.491

234.331

-105.745

211.491

0.689

3

0.876

ras_reliance

null

3

226.452

231.872

-110.226

220.452

ras_reliance

random

6

231.159

241.999

-109.580

219.159

1.293

3

0.731

ras_domination

null

3

214.301

219.721

-104.150

208.301

ras_domination

random

6

213.581

224.421

-100.790

201.581

6.720

3

0.081

symptom

null

3

333.066

338.486

-163.533

327.066

symptom

random

6

335.384

346.224

-161.692

323.384

3.682

3

0.298

slof_work

null

3

267.417

272.837

-130.709

261.417

slof_work

random

6

269.132

279.972

-128.566

257.132

4.285

3

0.232

slof_relationship

null

3

282.755

288.175

-138.377

276.755

slof_relationship

random

6

282.035

292.875

-135.018

270.035

6.719

3

0.081

satisfaction

null

3

300.231

305.651

-147.115

294.231

satisfaction

random

6

301.433

312.273

-144.716

289.433

4.798

3

0.187

mhc_emotional

null

3

243.098

248.518

-118.549

237.098

mhc_emotional

random

6

246.214

257.054

-117.107

234.214

2.884

3

0.410

mhc_social

null

3

282.836

288.256

-138.418

276.836

mhc_social

random

6

285.571

296.411

-136.786

273.571

3.265

3

0.353

mhc_psychological

null

3

290.562

295.982

-142.281

284.562

mhc_psychological

random

6

296.097

306.937

-142.049

284.097

0.464

3

0.927

resilisnce

null

3

264.455

269.875

-129.227

258.455

resilisnce

random

6

265.748

276.588

-126.874

253.748

4.707

3

0.195

social_provision

null

3

225.258

230.678

-109.629

219.258

social_provision

random

6

229.420

240.260

-108.710

217.420

1.838

3

0.607

els_value_living

null

3

214.202

219.622

-104.101

208.202

els_value_living

random

6

212.195

223.035

-100.098

200.195

8.007

3

0.046

els_life_fulfill

null

3

232.661

238.081

-113.330

226.661

els_life_fulfill

random

6

236.426

247.266

-112.213

224.426

2.235

3

0.525

els

null

3

275.165

280.585

-134.582

269.165

els

random

6

279.149

289.988

-133.574

267.149

2.016

3

0.569

social_connect

null

3

334.080

339.500

-164.040

328.080

social_connect

random

6

329.131

339.971

-158.565

317.131

10.949

3

0.012

shs_agency

null

3

265.666

271.086

-129.833

259.666

shs_agency

random

6

264.857

275.697

-126.428

252.857

6.809

3

0.078

shs_pathway

null

3

240.338

245.758

-117.169

234.338

shs_pathway

random

6

244.686

255.526

-116.343

232.686

1.652

3

0.648

shs

null

3

306.150

311.570

-150.075

300.150

shs

random

6

299.855

310.695

-143.927

287.855

12.295

3

0.006

esteem

null

3

143.795

149.215

-68.897

137.795

esteem

random

6

147.764

158.604

-67.882

135.764

2.031

3

0.566

mlq_search

null

3

230.260

235.680

-112.130

224.260

mlq_search

random

6

235.815

246.655

-111.907

223.815

0.445

3

0.931

mlq_presence

null

3

245.920

251.340

-119.960

239.920

mlq_presence

random

6

248.425

259.265

-118.213

236.425

3.494

3

0.322

mlq

null

3

291.973

297.393

-142.986

285.973

mlq

random

6

296.201

307.041

-142.101

284.201

1.771

3

0.621

empower

null

3

250.039

255.459

-122.020

244.039

empower

random

6

250.158

260.998

-119.079

238.158

5.881

3

0.118

ismi_resistance

null

3

221.558

226.978

-107.779

215.558

ismi_resistance

random

6

226.931

237.771

-107.465

214.931

0.627

3

0.890

ismi_discrimation

null

3

234.005

239.425

-114.002

228.005

ismi_discrimation

random

6

235.995

246.835

-111.998

223.995

4.009

3

0.260

sss_affective

null

3

245.028

250.448

-119.514

239.028

sss_affective

random

6

247.962

258.802

-117.981

235.962

3.066

3

0.382

sss_behavior

null

3

251.775

257.195

-122.887

245.775

sss_behavior

random

6

253.938

264.778

-120.969

241.938

3.837

3

0.280

sss_cognitive

null

3

256.029

261.449

-125.015

250.029

sss_cognitive

random

6

258.247

269.087

-123.123

246.247

3.783

3

0.286

sss

null

3

339.888

345.308

-166.944

333.888

sss

random

6

343.827

354.667

-165.913

331.827

2.062

3

0.560

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

19

3.58 ± 1.21

20

3.50 ± 1.21

0.840

0.111

recovery_stage_a

2nd

4

3.72 ± 1.06

-0.204

2

4.50 ± 1.03

-1.403

0.409

-1.088

recovery_stage_b

1st

19

18.53 ± 2.76

20

18.30 ± 2.76

0.799

0.291

recovery_stage_b

2nd

4

17.89 ± 1.60

0.812

2

18.48 ± 1.36

-0.225

0.649

-0.747

ras_confidence

1st

19

31.00 ± 4.47

20

31.55 ± 4.47

0.703

-0.507

ras_confidence

2nd

4

30.78 ± 2.46

0.204

2

33.28 ± 2.03

-1.598

0.201

-2.309

ras_willingness

1st

19

12.53 ± 2.02

20

12.15 ± 2.02

0.565

0.391

ras_willingness

2nd

4

11.66 ± 1.53

0.902

2

12.18 ± 1.45

-0.033

0.690

-0.545

ras_goal

1st

19

18.11 ± 2.98

20

17.75 ± 2.98

0.712

0.376

ras_goal

2nd

4

17.79 ± 1.81

0.329

2

17.38 ± 1.58

0.396

0.775

0.443

ras_reliance

1st

19

13.42 ± 3.26

20

13.50 ± 3.26

0.940

-0.079

ras_reliance

2nd

4

13.45 ± 1.95

-0.031

2

14.45 ± 1.69

-0.958

0.526

-1.007

ras_domination

1st

19

11.11 ± 2.43

20

9.45 ± 2.43

0.040

0.954

ras_domination

2nd

4

9.31 ± 2.43

1.033

2

10.99 ± 2.43

-0.886

0.441

-0.965

symptom

1st

19

28.53 ± 10.74

20

30.80 ± 10.74

0.513

-0.909

symptom

2nd

4

25.69 ± 5.85

1.136

2

31.01 ± 4.78

-0.085

0.247

-2.130

slof_work

1st

19

24.05 ± 5.04

20

22.45 ± 5.04

0.327

1.166

slof_work

2nd

4

22.35 ± 2.89

1.236

2

22.75 ± 2.44

-0.219

0.862

-0.289

slof_relationship

1st

19

27.84 ± 5.66

20

25.85 ± 5.66

0.279

1.036

slof_relationship

2nd

4

24.50 ± 3.55

1.736

2

27.54 ± 3.14

-0.880

0.306

-1.579

satisfaction

1st

19

20.47 ± 6.98

20

22.70 ± 6.98

0.326

-0.900

satisfaction

2nd

4

23.54 ± 4.47

-1.240

2

24.11 ± 3.99

-0.572

0.876

-0.232

mhc_emotional

1st

19

11.42 ± 3.42

20

12.25 ± 3.42

0.454

-0.242

mhc_emotional

2nd

4

12.50 ± 4.04

-0.315

2

16.50 ± 4.12

-1.242

0.266

-1.169

mhc_social

1st

19

15.68 ± 5.36

20

14.85 ± 5.36

0.630

0.199

mhc_social

2nd

4

18.96 ± 5.71

-0.781

2

11.99 ± 5.76

0.682

0.180

1.662

mhc_psychological

1st

19

22.63 ± 5.97

20

23.50 ± 5.97

0.652

-0.160

mhc_psychological

2nd

4

24.32 ± 6.91

-0.312

2

22.65 ± 7.03

0.156

0.784

0.308

resilisnce

1st

19

17.16 ± 4.87

20

17.30 ± 4.87

0.928

-0.109

resilisnce

2nd

4

17.47 ± 2.77

-0.238

2

14.21 ± 2.33

2.372

0.148

2.501

social_provision

1st

19

13.79 ± 3.22

20

13.70 ± 3.22

0.931

0.096

social_provision

2nd

4

13.60 ± 1.89

0.204

2

14.77 ± 1.61

-1.144

0.442

-1.252

els_value_living

1st

19

17.26 ± 3.05

20

17.50 ± 3.05

0.810

-0.773

els_value_living

2nd

4

17.02 ± 1.45

0.800

2

16.52 ± 1.05

3.215

0.631

1.642

els_life_fulfill

1st

19

12.58 ± 3.34

20

13.90 ± 3.34

0.225

-0.988

els_life_fulfill

2nd

4

13.35 ± 2.28

-0.574

2

13.82 ± 2.09

0.062

0.806

-0.352

els

1st

19

29.84 ± 5.72

20

31.40 ± 5.72

0.401

-1.123

els

2nd

4

30.22 ± 3.15

-0.272

2

30.14 ± 2.60

0.907

0.975

0.056

social_connect

1st

19

26.00 ± 10.59

20

26.60 ± 10.59

0.861

-0.372

social_connect

2nd

4

30.59 ± 5.27

-2.846

2

31.53 ± 3.99

-3.054

0.810

-0.579

shs_agency

1st

19

14.42 ± 4.82

20

14.50 ± 4.82

0.959

-0.061

shs_agency

2nd

4

16.96 ± 2.74

-1.967

2

14.75 ± 2.31

-0.195

0.315

1.710

shs_pathway

1st

19

16.63 ± 3.69

20

17.20 ± 3.69

0.633

-0.410

shs_pathway

2nd

4

17.65 ± 2.43

-0.733

2

17.17 ± 2.20

0.024

0.812

0.347

shs

1st

19

31.05 ± 7.87

20

31.70 ± 7.87

0.799

-0.667

shs

2nd

4

34.56 ± 3.81

-3.616

2

31.30 ± 2.81

0.408

0.243

3.357

esteem

1st

19

12.84 ± 1.15

20

12.40 ± 1.15

0.235

0.386

esteem

2nd

4

13.00 ± 1.35

-0.138

2

12.50 ± 1.38

-0.087

0.676

0.436

mlq_search

1st

19

15.79 ± 3.21

20

15.25 ± 3.21

0.603

0.320

mlq_search

2nd

4

16.03 ± 2.58

-0.142

2

15.09 ± 2.48

0.093

0.678

0.555

mlq_presence

1st

19

14.79 ± 3.95

20

13.05 ± 3.95

0.177

1.441

mlq_presence

2nd

4

14.65 ± 2.36

0.113

2

11.87 ± 2.05

0.976

0.159

2.304

mlq

1st

19

30.58 ± 6.43

20

28.30 ± 6.43

0.276

0.825

mlq

2nd

4

30.79 ± 4.56

-0.078

2

27.17 ± 4.24

0.411

0.358

1.314

empower

1st

19

20.74 ± 4.29

20

19.80 ± 4.29

0.500

1.178

empower

2nd

4

20.28 ± 2.21

0.574

2

17.91 ± 1.73

2.376

0.161

2.980

ismi_resistance

1st

19

15.16 ± 2.78

20

15.00 ± 2.78

0.860

0.067

ismi_resistance

2nd

4

14.33 ± 3.11

0.350

2

15.58 ± 3.16

-0.245

0.652

-0.527

ismi_discrimation

1st

19

12.11 ± 3.14

20

10.30 ± 3.14

0.080

0.854

ismi_discrimation

2nd

4

11.06 ± 3.01

0.496

2

9.66 ± 2.99

0.301

0.602

0.659

sss_affective

1st

19

9.84 ± 4.37

20

9.15 ± 4.37

0.624

1.176

sss_affective

2nd

4

9.64 ± 2.14

0.335

2

10.05 ± 1.59

-1.524

0.797

-0.683

sss_behavior

1st

19

10.32 ± 4.52

20

8.95 ± 4.52

0.352

1.761

sss_behavior

2nd

4

9.64 ± 2.29

0.875

2

9.82 ± 1.77

-1.120

0.915

-0.234

sss_cognitive

1st

19

7.58 ± 4.15

20

8.30 ± 4.15

0.591

-0.349

sss_cognitive

2nd

4

10.05 ± 3.22

-1.200

2

7.98 ± 3.07

0.154

0.462

1.004

sss

1st

19

27.74 ± 12.19

20

26.40 ± 12.19

0.734

0.605

sss

2nd

4

28.98 ± 6.24

-0.561

2

28.46 ± 4.86

-0.932

0.912

0.234

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(38.60) = -0.20, p = 0.840, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.87 to 0.71)

2st

t(10.08) = 0.86, p = 0.409, Cohen d = -1.09, 95% CI (-1.23 to 2.78)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(37.33) = -0.26, p = 0.799, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.01 to 1.56)

2st

t(15.76) = 0.46, p = 0.649, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-2.08 to 3.24)

ras_confidence

1st

t(37.24) = 0.38, p = 0.703, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-2.35 to 3.45)

2st

t(19.61) = 1.32, p = 0.201, Cohen d = -2.31, 95% CI (-1.45 to 6.45)

ras_willingness

1st

t(38.01) = -0.58, p = 0.565, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-1.69 to 0.94)

2st

t(9.82) = 0.41, p = 0.690, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-2.33 to 3.38)

ras_goal

1st

t(37.42) = -0.37, p = 0.712, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-2.29 to 1.58)

2st

t(13.55) = -0.29, p = 0.775, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-3.51 to 2.68)

ras_reliance

1st

t(37.39) = 0.08, p = 0.940, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.03 to 2.19)

2st

t(14.20) = 0.65, p = 0.526, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (-2.30 to 4.30)

ras_domination

1st

t(39.46) = -2.13, p = 0.040, Cohen d = 0.95, 95% CI (-3.23 to -0.08)

2st

t(12.85) = 0.80, p = 0.441, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (-2.88 to 6.23)

symptom

1st

t(37.22) = 0.66, p = 0.513, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (-4.70 to 9.24)

2st

t(20.78) = 1.19, p = 0.247, Cohen d = -2.13, 95% CI (-3.97 to 14.62)

slof_work

1st

t(37.31) = -0.99, p = 0.327, Cohen d = 1.17, 95% CI (-4.87 to 1.67)

2st

t(16.55) = 0.18, p = 0.862, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-4.36 to 5.15)

slof_relationship

1st

t(37.49) = -1.10, p = 0.279, Cohen d = 1.04, 95% CI (-5.66 to 1.68)

2st

t(12.51) = 1.07, p = 0.306, Cohen d = -1.58, 95% CI (-3.13 to 9.21)

satisfaction

1st

t(37.53) = 1.00, p = 0.326, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (-2.30 to 6.76)

2st

t(11.98) = 0.16, p = 0.876, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-7.27 to 8.42)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(41.00) = 0.76, p = 0.454, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.38 to 3.04)

2st

t(41.00) = 1.13, p = 0.266, Cohen d = -1.17, 95% CI (-3.16 to 11.16)

mhc_social

1st

t(39.95) = -0.49, p = 0.630, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-4.30 to 2.63)

2st

t(16.23) = -1.40, p = 0.180, Cohen d = 1.66, 95% CI (-17.50 to 3.56)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(40.77) = 0.45, p = 0.652, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.99 to 4.73)

2st

t(30.46) = -0.28, p = 0.784, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-14.02 to 10.68)

resilisnce

1st

t(37.30) = 0.09, p = 0.928, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-3.02 to 3.30)

2st

t(16.97) = -1.51, p = 0.148, Cohen d = 2.50, 95% CI (-7.80 to 1.28)

social_provision

1st

t(37.35) = -0.09, p = 0.931, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.18 to 2.00)

2st

t(15.20) = 0.79, p = 0.442, Cohen d = -1.25, 95% CI (-1.99 to 4.32)

els_value_living

1st

t(37.04) = 0.24, p = 0.810, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-1.74 to 2.22)

2st

t(40.90) = -0.48, p = 0.631, Cohen d = 1.64, 95% CI (-2.60 to 1.59)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(37.69) = 1.23, p = 0.225, Cohen d = -0.99, 95% CI (-0.85 to 3.49)

2st

t(10.74) = 0.25, p = 0.806, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-3.64 to 4.58)

els

1st

t(37.24) = 0.85, p = 0.401, Cohen d = -1.12, 95% CI (-2.15 to 5.27)

2st

t(19.58) = -0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-5.13 to 4.98)

social_connect

1st

t(37.09) = 0.18, p = 0.861, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-6.27 to 7.47)

2st

t(34.80) = 0.24, p = 0.810, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-6.90 to 8.77)

shs_agency

1st

t(37.30) = 0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-3.05 to 3.20)

2st

t(16.93) = -1.04, p = 0.315, Cohen d = 1.71, 95% CI (-6.71 to 2.29)

shs_pathway

1st

t(37.61) = 0.48, p = 0.633, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.82 to 2.96)

2st

t(11.30) = -0.24, p = 0.812, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-4.82 to 3.85)

shs

1st

t(37.06) = 0.26, p = 0.799, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-4.46 to 5.75)

2st

t(39.28) = -1.18, p = 0.243, Cohen d = 3.36, 95% CI (-8.82 to 2.30)

esteem

1st

t(41.00) = -1.20, p = 0.235, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-1.18 to 0.30)

2st

t(41.00) = -0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-2.90 to 1.90)

mlq_search

1st

t(38.24) = -0.52, p = 0.603, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.62 to 1.54)

2st

t(9.72) = -0.43, p = 0.678, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-5.81 to 3.94)

mlq_presence

1st

t(37.39) = -1.38, p = 0.177, Cohen d = 1.44, 95% CI (-4.30 to 0.82)

2st

t(14.19) = -1.49, p = 0.159, Cohen d = 2.30, 95% CI (-6.78 to 1.22)

mlq

1st

t(37.80) = -1.11, p = 0.276, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-6.45 to 1.89)

2st

t(10.25) = -0.96, p = 0.358, Cohen d = 1.31, 95% CI (-11.99 to 4.74)

empower

1st

t(37.14) = -0.68, p = 0.500, Cohen d = 1.18, 95% CI (-3.72 to 1.85)

2st

t(28.44) = -1.44, p = 0.161, Cohen d = 2.98, 95% CI (-5.74 to 1.00)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(40.41) = -0.18, p = 0.860, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.96 to 1.64)

2st

t(21.85) = 0.46, p = 0.652, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-4.40 to 6.89)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(39.16) = -1.80, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 0.85, 95% CI (-3.84 to 0.23)

2st

t(11.56) = -0.54, p = 0.602, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-7.08 to 4.29)

sss_affective

1st

t(37.07) = -0.49, p = 0.624, Cohen d = 1.18, 95% CI (-3.53 to 2.14)

2st

t(37.78) = 0.26, p = 0.797, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-2.74 to 3.54)

sss_behavior

1st

t(37.12) = -0.94, p = 0.352, Cohen d = 1.76, 95% CI (-4.30 to 1.57)

2st

t(31.10) = 0.11, p = 0.915, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-3.28 to 3.64)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(38.11) = 0.54, p = 0.591, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.97 to 3.41)

2st

t(9.73) = -0.77, p = 0.462, Cohen d = 1.00, 95% CI (-8.12 to 3.98)

sss

1st

t(37.13) = -0.34, p = 0.734, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-9.25 to 6.57)

2st

t(29.21) = -0.11, p = 0.912, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-10.01 to 8.98)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(6.12) = 1.40, p = 0.420, Cohen d = -1.40, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.74)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(4.32) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.93 to 2.28)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(4.23) = 1.60, p = 0.364, Cohen d = -1.60, 95% CI (-1.22 to 4.68)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(5.13) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.43 to 2.50)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(4.42) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-2.91 to 2.16)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(4.38) = 0.96, p = 0.777, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (-1.72 to 3.63)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(8.42) = 0.89, p = 0.794, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (-2.40 to 5.47)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(4.21) = 0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-6.60 to 7.03)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(4.30) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-3.42 to 4.02)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(4.49) = 0.88, p = 0.849, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (-3.44 to 6.82)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(4.54) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-5.16 to 7.99)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(35.06) = 1.41, p = 0.334, Cohen d = -1.24, 95% CI (-1.86 to 10.36)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(10.76) = -0.70, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-11.93 to 6.21)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(20.67) = -0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-11.43 to 9.74)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(4.28) = -2.37, p = 0.145, Cohen d = 2.37, 95% CI (-6.62 to 0.44)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(4.34) = 1.14, p = 0.625, Cohen d = -1.14, 95% CI (-1.45 to 3.58)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(4.04) = -3.21, p = 0.064, Cohen d = 3.22, 95% CI (-1.83 to -0.14)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(4.72) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-3.59 to 3.43)

els

1st vs 2st

t(4.23) = -0.91, p = 0.827, Cohen d = 0.91, 95% CI (-5.03 to 2.52)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(4.09) = 3.05, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -3.05, 95% CI (0.48 to 9.37)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(4.29) = 0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-3.25 to 3.75)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(4.62) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-3.70 to 3.63)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(4.06) = -0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-3.08 to 2.29)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(35.06) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.95 to 2.15)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(5.49) = -0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-4.38 to 4.07)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(4.38) = -0.97, p = 0.762, Cohen d = 0.98, 95% CI (-4.42 to 2.07)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(4.86) = -0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-8.32 to 6.05)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(4.13) = -2.37, p = 0.149, Cohen d = 2.38, 95% CI (-4.07 to 0.29)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(14.51) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-4.27 to 5.43)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(7.45) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-5.55 to 4.28)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(4.07) = 1.52, p = 0.402, Cohen d = -1.52, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.52)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(4.11) = 1.12, p = 0.648, Cohen d = -1.12, 95% CI (-1.26 to 3.00)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(5.28) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-5.55 to 4.92)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(4.12) = 0.93, p = 0.806, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (-4.01 to 8.13)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(5.77) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.39)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(4.28) = -1.15, p = 0.623, Cohen d = 0.81, 95% CI (-2.12 to 0.86)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(4.20) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-2.31 to 1.87)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(4.97) = -1.27, p = 0.519, Cohen d = 0.90, 95% CI (-2.63 to 0.89)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(4.36) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-2.11 to 1.49)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(4.33) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.87 to 1.93)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(7.53) = -1.47, p = 0.363, Cohen d = 1.03, 95% CI (-4.63 to 1.05)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(4.18) = -1.60, p = 0.362, Cohen d = 1.14, 95% CI (-7.67 to 1.99)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(4.26) = -1.75, p = 0.303, Cohen d = 1.24, 95% CI (-4.34 to 0.94)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(4.42) = -2.45, p = 0.129, Cohen d = 1.74, 95% CI (-6.98 to 0.31)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(4.46) = 1.75, p = 0.295, Cohen d = -1.24, 95% CI (-1.60 to 7.74)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(25.31) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-3.38 to 5.54)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(9.20) = 1.12, p = 0.579, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-3.29 to 9.84)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(15.61) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-6.01 to 9.40)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(4.25) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.19 to 2.81)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(4.29) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.98 to 1.60)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(4.03) = -1.13, p = 0.641, Cohen d = 0.80, 95% CI (-0.84 to 0.35)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(4.62) = 0.81, p = 0.915, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.73 to 3.27)

els

1st vs 2st

t(4.20) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-2.30 to 3.05)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(4.08) = 4.02, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -2.85, 95% CI (1.45 to 7.74)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(4.25) = 2.78, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -1.97, 95% CI (0.06 to 5.03)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(4.54) = 1.03, p = 0.706, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-1.59 to 3.63)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(4.05) = 5.11, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -3.62, 95% CI (1.61 to 5.41)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(25.31) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.34 to 1.65)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(5.26) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-2.79 to 3.26)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(4.33) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-2.44 to 2.17)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(4.74) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-4.90 to 5.33)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(4.11) = -0.81, p = 0.923, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.00 to 1.09)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(11.72) = -0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-4.35 to 2.70)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(6.80) = -0.70, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-4.59 to 2.49)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(4.06) = -0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.35 to 0.95)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(4.10) = -1.24, p = 0.565, Cohen d = 0.87, 95% CI (-2.19 to 0.83)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(5.09) = 1.69, p = 0.301, Cohen d = -1.20, 95% CI (-1.27 to 6.22)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(4.11) = 0.79, p = 0.943, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-3.06 to 5.53)

Plot

Clinical significance

Insomnia group

Other method